Waltham Forest Council (202201036)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201036

Waltham Forest Council

7 November 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of not having an allocated parking space.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 41(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.
  2. Furthermore, paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Complaints concerning the local authority’s management and enforcement of highway parking fall properly within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
  3. Therefore, as the car parking outside the resident’s property is covered by a controlled parking zone managed by the local authority, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s response to the complaint insofar as whether it acted reasonably and in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement.

 

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. He occupies a flat on an estate. The landlord was aware that the resident had a disability and held a disabled badge at the time of the complaint.
  2. The resident previously made a complaint to the landlord about the availability of parking outside his property. He said that he had previously been provided with a parking permit for allocated parking outside his property. This had since changed and now parking outside his block was a “free for all” and there was no parking enforcement. The landlord’s issued its final response to this complaint to the resident on 26 May 2021, where it explained changes to the previous parking arrangements. The landlord confirmed that there was no allocated parking provided for in the resident’s tenancy agreement, but proposed to arrange for him to use a parking spot outside an adjacent block in light of his disability.
  3. The resident raised a new complaint with the landlord on 28 March 2022, in which he highlighted that, two years previously, when he viewed the property, it was advertised with parking and he was issued a resident’s permit for this. He relayed that he was informed on 19 March 2022 that he now needed to apply for a parking permit at a cost of £165 per year. The resident asserted that parking was included with the property, as per his tenancy agreement, and the uncertainty of being able to park near his home was impacting him physically, emotionally and financially because of his disability.
  4. The landlord’s final response to the complaint on 24 June 2022 stated that there was no mention of guaranteed parking in his tenancy agreement. It explained the changes in the management of parking on his estate, which was now part of an on-street controlled parking zone. The landlord confirmed that his property was eligible for a resident’s parking permit and offered information on how to obtain a parking permit free of charge due to his disability.
  5. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 19 August 2022 that while a specific parking bay was not assigned to the property, the location of parking for the property was detailed in the tenancy agreement. He held that the property was advertised by the landlord as having parking and there was no mention that this was temporary. The resident highlighted that the lack of parking enforcement was a safety issue as strangers had access to the front of his property and the lack of parking impacted on his health conditions.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of not having an allocated parking space

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident is the legal contract which sets out each party’s obligations. If there is provision of a parking space for the occupant of a property, it would be specified in this agreement and the landlord would be obliged to allow the resident the use of this. The resident’s terms and conditions of tenancy with the landlord makes no provision for an allocated parking space, and there is no other evidence supplied which contradicts this. He has said that he was informed at the time of tenancy sign up that there was allocated parking for his property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony, however, there has been no evidence supplied to confirm this.
  2. The resident has submitted to the Ombudsman photographs of information  provided to residents in his block which specified that residents who occupy a three-bedroomed apartment or wheelchair apartment are eligible for a parking permit for the area at the rear of the resident’s block. This indicated that the resident was eligible for a parking permit, but this did not evidence that he had a parking space allocated to his property.
  3. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident in its complaint responses that no allocated parking space was available to him. In consideration of his disability, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide him with information on how to secure a parking permit free of charge. The information the landlord provided to the resident was therefore reasonable and in accordance with the tenancy agreement and there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in this regard.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints and compliments webpage states that stage one complaints will be responded to within 20 working days, and final-stage complaints with be responded within 25 working days.
  2. The resident raised his recent stage one complaint with the landlord on 28 March 2022, to which it responded the same day. This stage one response did not provide details on how to escalate his complaint in case of continued dissatisfaction. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its final response which apologised for this omission and advised that it would ensure that this information would be provided in future responses.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), (published on our website)  sets out best practice for complaint handling which landlords who are a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme should adhere to. The Code states that a landlord should always provide sufficient information in its complaint responses for a resident to escalate their complaint if they continue to be dissatisfied. The landlord’s stage one response did not comply with this and led the resident needing to seek the intervention of the Ombudsman on 29 April 2022 to progress his complaint, which would have caused him avoidable inconvenience.
  4. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was provided to the resident within 12 working days of receipt of the complaint, and the final stage complaint was provided within 24 working days. The landlord’s complaint responses were issued in accordance with the timeframes specified on its complaints and compliments webpage. The landlord acknowledged that its stage one complaint response did not fully address the resident’s concerns and apologised for this. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that an apology represents reasonable redress in view of this error and the landlord does not need to do anything further.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of not having an allocated parking space.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should conduct refresher training with its complaints handling staff to ensure that the appropriate information is provided to residents in its complaint responses to them.